DOCSLIB.ORG

Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems†

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems† American Economic Review 100 (June 2010): 641–672 http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi 10.1257/aer.100.3.641 = Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems† By Elinor Ostrom* Contemporary research on the outcomes of diverse institutional arrangements for governing common-pool resources CPRs and public goods at multiple scales builds on classical economic ( ) theory while developing new theory to explain phenomena that do not fit in a dichotomous world of “the market” and “the state.” Scholars are slowly shifting from positing simple systems to using more complex frameworks, theories, and models to understand the diversity of puzzles and problems facing humans interacting in contemporary societies. The humans we study have complex motivational structures and establish diverse private-for-profit, governmental, and com- munity institutional arrangements that operate at multiple scales to generate productive and inno- vative as well as destructive and perverse outcomes Douglass C. North 1990, 2005 . ( ) In this article, I will describe the intellectual journey that I have taken the last half century from when I began graduate studies in the late 1950s. The early efforts to understand the poly- centric water industry in California were formative for me. In addition to working with Vincent Ostrom and Charles M. Tiebout as they formulated the concept of polycentric systems for gov- erning metropolitan areas, I studied the efforts of a large group of private and public water producers facing the problem of an overdrafted groundwater basin on the coast and watching saltwater intrusion threaten the possibility of long term use. Then, in the 1970s, I participated with colleagues in the study of polycentric police industries serving US metropolitan areas to find that the dominant theory underlying massive reform proposals was incorrect. Metropolitan areas served by a combination of large and small producers could achieve economies of scale in the production of some police services and avoid diseconomies of scale in the production of others. These early empirical studies led over time to the development of the Institutional Analysis and Development IAD framework. A common framework consistent with game theory enabled ( ) us to undertake a variety of empirical studies including a meta-analysis of a large number of existing case studies on common-pool resource systems around the world. Carefully designed experimental studies in the lab have enabled us to test precise combinations of structural vari- ables to find that isolated, anonymous individuals overharvest from common-pool resources. Simply allowing communication, or “cheap talk,” enables participants to reduce overharvest- ing and increase joint payoffs contrary to game theoretical predictions. Large studies of irriga- tion systems in Nepal and forests around the world challenge the presumption that governments always do a better job than users in organizing and protecting important resources. † This article is a revised version of the lecture Elinor Ostrom delivered in Stockholm, Sweden, on December 8, 2009, when she received the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This article is copy- right © The Nobel Foundation 2009 and is published here with the permission of the Nobel Foundation. * Ostrom: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408 e-mail: [email protected] and Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.( I wish to thank Vincent Ostrom) and my many colleagues at the Workshop who have worked with me throughout the years to develop the research program that is briefly discussed herein. I appreciate the helpful suggestions given me by Arun Agrawal, Andreas Leibbrandt, Mike McGinnis, Jimmy Walker, Tom Wisdom, and by the Applied Theory Working Group and the Experimental Reading Group, and the excellent editing skills of Patty Lezotte. Essential support received over the years from the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. 641 642 THE AMERICAn ECOnOMIC REVIEW JunE 2010 Currently, many scholars are undertaking new theoretical efforts. A core effort is devel- oping a more general theory of individual choice that recognizes the central role of trust in coping with social dilemmas. Over time, a clear set of findings from the microsituational level have emerged regarding structural factors affecting the likelihood of increased coopera- tion. Due to the complexity of broader field settings, one needs to develop more configural approaches to the study of factors that enhance or detract from the emergence and robustness of self-organized efforts within multilevel, polycentric systems. Further, the application of empirical studies to the policy world leads one to stress the importance of fitting institutional rules to a specific social-ecological setting. “One size fits all” policies are not effective. The frameworks and empirical work that many scholars have undertaken in recent decades pro- vide a better foundation for policy analysis. With this brief overview, let us now discuss the journey itself. I. The Earlier World View of Simple Systems In the mid-twentieth century, the dominant scholarly effort was to try to fit the world into simple models and to criticize institutional arrangements that did not fit. I will briefly review the basic assumptions that were made at that time but have been challenged by scholars around the world, including the work of Herbert A. Simon 1955 and V. Ostrom 2008 . ( ) ( ) A. Two Optimal Organizational Forms The market was seen as the optimal institution for the production and exchange of private goods. For nonprivate goods, on the other hand, one needed “the” government to impose rules and taxes to force self-interested individuals to contribute necessary resources and refrain from self-seeking activities. Without a hierarchical government to induce compliance, self-seeking citizens and officials would fail to generate efficient levels of public goods, such as peace and security, at multiple scales Thomas Hobbes [1651] 1960; Woodrow Wilson 1885 . A single gov- ( ) ernmental unit, for example, was strongly recommended to reduce the “chaotic” structure of metropolitan governance, increase efficiency, limit conflict among governmental units, and best serve a homogeneous view of the public William Anderson and Edward W. Weidner 1950; ( Luther Gulick 1957; H. Paul Friesema 1966 . This dichotomous view of the world explained pat- ) terns of interaction and outcomes related to markets for the production and exchange of strictly private goods Armen A. Alchian 1950 , but it has not adequately accounted for internal dynam- ( ) ics within private firms Oliver E. Williamson 1975, 1986 . Nor does it adequately deal with the ( ) wide diversity of institutional arrangements that humans craft to govern, provide, and manage public goods and common-pool resources. B. Two Types of Goods In his classic definitional essay, Paul Samuelson 1954 divided goods into two types. Pure ( ) private goods are both excludable individual A can be excluded from consuming private ( goods unless paid for and rivalrous whatever individual A consumes, no one else can con- ) ( sume . Public goods are both nonexcludable impossible to keep those who have not paid for ) ( a good from consuming it and nonrivalrous whatever individual A consumes does not limit ) ( the consumption by others . This basic division was consistent with the dichotomy of the ) institutional world into private property exchanges in a market setting and government-owned property organized by a public hierarchy. The people of the world were viewed primarily as consumers or voters. VOL. 100 nO. 3 Ostrom: Polycentric GovernAnce of Complex Economic systems 643 C. One Model of the Individual The assumption that all individuals are fully rational was generally accepted in mainstream economics and game theory. Fully rational individuals are presumed to know i all possible ( ) strategies available in a particular situation, ii which outcomes are linked to each strategy given ( ) the likely behavior of others in a situation, and iii a rank order for each of these outcomes in ( ) terms of the individual’s own preferences as measured by utility. The rational strategy for such an individual in every situation is to maximize expected utility. While utility was originally conceived of as a way of combining a diversity of external values on a single internal scale, in practice it has come to be equated with one externalized unit of measure—such as expected profits. This model of the individual has fruitfully generated useful and empirically validated predictions about the results of exchange transactions related to goods with specific attributes in a competitive market but not in a diversity of social dilemmas. I will return to a discussion of the theory of individual behavior in Section VIIA. II. Early Efforts to Develop a Fuller Understanding of Complex Human Systems The mid-twentieth-century worldviews of simple systems have slowly been transformed as a result of extensive empirical research and the development of a framework consistent with game theoretical models for the analysis of a broad array of questions. A. studying Polycentric Public Industries Undertaking empirical studies of how citizens, local public entrepreneurs, and public offi- cials engage in diverse ways of providing, producing, and managing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • JOI Volume 5 Issue 2 Cover and Front Matter
    17441374_5-2.qxd 6/25/09 4:00 PM Page 1 Journal of ISSN 1744-1374 Economics Institutional of Journal Institutional Journal of Economics vol 5 • no 2 • AUGUST 2009 Institutional Economics Contents 137 Knowledge and the theory of institutional change vol 5 • no 2 • AUGUST 2009 Thráinn Eggertsson 151 Comparing theories of institutional change Chris Kingston and Gonzalo Caballero 181 Institutions and US regional development: a study of Massachusetts and Virginia Sukkoo Kim 207 Does institutional quality affect capital mobility? Evidence from developing countries Javed Younas 225 Comparative urban institutions and intertemporal externality: a revisit of the 5 • no 2 AUGUSTvol 2009 Coase conjecture Feng Deng Fragment 251 Self-deceit and self-serving bias: Adam Smith on ‘General Rules’ Elias L. Khalil Cambridge Journals Online For further information about this journal please go to the journal website at: journals.cambridge.org/joi Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.35.76, on 28 Sep 2021 at 20:26:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137409001258 17441374_5-2.qxd 6/25/09 4:00 PM Page 2 Journal of Institutional Economics Journal of Institutional Economics editors statement of aims submission of articles subscriptions copying issn Institutions are the stuff of social and institutions and organizations. The Journal of Institutional Economics ( Geoffrey M. Hodgson (Editor-in-Chief) Submission should be made electronically to This journal is registered with the Copyright economic life. The importance of The Journal of Institutional Economics is an 1744-1374) is published three times a year, The Business School the Editor-in-Chief, Geoffrey Hodgson, via Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, understanding the role of institutions in interdisciplinary journal that will be of interest April, August and December.
    [Show full text]
  • State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform
    State Failure in Developing Countries and Strategies of Institutional Reform Mushtaq H. Khan Department of Economics, SOAS, University of London. Abstract: The analysis of state failure and the policy debate have been driven by two very different underlying views of what the state does. The first, which we call the “service- delivery” view says the role of the state is to provide law and order, stable property rights, key public goods and welfarist redistributions. In failing to provide these, state failure contributes to economic under-performance and poverty. State failure of this type is in turn related to an inter-dependent constellation of governance failures including corruption and rent-seeking, distortions in markets and the absence of democracy. All of these need to be addressed to focus the state on its core service-delivery tasks. The second locates the developing country state in the context of “social transformation”: the dramatic transition these countries are going through as traditional production systems collapse and a capitalist economy begins to emerge. Dynamic transformation states have heavily intervened in property rights and devised rent-management systems to accelerate the capitalist transition and the acquisition of new technologies. State failure according to this view has been driven by the lack of institutional capacities in these respects, and more importantly, the incompatibility of institutional capacities with pre-existing distributions of power. An examination of the econometric data and historical evidence raises serious doubts as to whether the governance reforms suggested by the first view can improve growth, while the need for reforms identified by the second view are much better supported.
    [Show full text]
  • Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership
    ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations
    Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations Hein Goemans Course Information: Harkness 337 Spring 2016 Office Hours: Wed. 2 { 3 PM 16:50{19:30 Wednesday [email protected] Meliora 203 The last fifteen years or so saw a major revolution in the social sciences. Instead of trying to discover and test grand \covering laws" that have universal validity and tremendous scope| think Newton's gravity or Einstein's relativity|the social sciences are in the process of switch- ing to more narrow and middle-range theories and explanations, often referred to as causal mechanisms. Recently, however, a new so-called \behavioral" approach { often but not always complementary { is currently sweeping the field. Since mechanisms remain the core theoretical building blocks in our field, we will continue to focus on them. In the bulk of this course students will be introduced to a range of such causal mechanisms with applications in international relations. Although these causal mechanisms can loosely be described in prose, explicit formalization { e.g., math { allows for a much deeper and richer understanding of the phenomena of study. In other words, formalization enables simplification and thus a better understanding of what is \really" going on. To set us on that path, we begin with some very basic rational choice fundamentals to introduce you to formal models in a rigorous way to show the power and potential of this approach. In other words, there will be some *gasp* Algebra. For much of the very brief but essential introduction to game theory we will use William Spaniel's Channel (http://gametheory101.com/courses/game-theory-101/, also on YouTube), as well as his cheap but very highly rated introductory book Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook available at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com).
    [Show full text]
  • Masahiko Aoki
    Masahiko Aoki (Henri and Tomoye Takahashi Professor Emeritus of Japanese Studies, Economics Department, and Senior Fellow, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Director of the Virtual Center for Advanced Studies in Institution, Tokyo Foundation). Remarks on “Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité” by Professor Kornai at the conference in honor of Professor Wu Jinglian In honor of the 80 th birthday of Professor Wu, Professor Janos Kornai aptly takes up the fundamental social values of “Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité”, the revolutionary motto of the French revolution, as the theme of his contribution. He examines the achievement of these values in the Eastern European countries after twenty years of the Fall of the Berlin Wall and offers his insight on this as a possible reference frame for China’s reform. I say he does so “aptly”, because Professor Wu, in his paper, China’s Economy: Sixty Years of Progress, authoritatively and insightfully traces the progress with respect to these societal values associated with the complex path of economic development of China, while passionately warning against possible regress that might be brought about by giving-up further reform. Doubtlessly, these two giants from the former planned economies, the West and the East, agree on the importance and relevance of those universal values to economic and societal transformation and development, while they are aware of many obstacles and challenges to realize them in the concrete context of each economy. While Professor Kornai notes remarkable achievements in Eastern European economies as regards Liberté, he points out that there seems to exist no simple political consensus about how to achieve the norm of Egalité and Fraternité.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Masahiko Aoki
    Introduction Masahiko Aoki This volume is a collection of 22 articles that I have written for professional journals and edited volumes in the past 45 years. Naturally there are variations in theme, focus, approach and style among these writings. The articles are therefore organized into four parts according to basic themes. Part I: Comparative Mechanism Design includes eight chapters dealing with economic and organizational processes as computation/information systems. Four chapters in section A deal with the design of resource allocation processes for non-neoclassical environments (that is, non-convexity, externalities) in the ‘price versus quantity’ framework and four chapters in section B analytically compare properties of vertical, horizontal and modular coordination mechanisms in organizations. Part II: The Diversity of Corporate Governance: A Cooperative Game Approach consists of four chapters that analyze the nature of corporate governance as multiple, equilibrium responses to varied information systems of the corporate firm as discussed in Part I, section B. In this approach, the universal validity of the orthodox shareholders’ sovereignty view of corporate governance is challenged. It does not hold as equilibrium for emergent information systems in which the rights of controlling physical assets needs to be complemented by cognitive assets of employees. Part III: Analysis of the Endogenous Nature of Institutions includes five chapters that provide a conceptual framework for understanding institutions as endogenous outcomes of the societal process in which individual beliefs and strategic actions are mediated by public representations of common knowledge. They provide a game-theoretic foundation for important notions in institutional studies such as institutional complementarities, enforcement, social embeddedness, customs, and path-dependence.
    [Show full text]
  • Masahiko Aoki
    Masahiko Aoki Henri and Tomoye Takahashi Professor of Japanese Studies, Department of Economics; Sr. Fellow, Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), Stanford University President and Chief Research Officer (CRO), Research Institute of International Trade and Industry (RIETI), Government of Japan Ph.D. University of Minnesota (1967); A.B. and M.A., University of Tokyo (1962, 1964) Born in 1938 in Japan; Assistant professor (1968-71) and Fulbright Visiting Professor (1979-80) at Harvard University; Associate and Full Professor (1969-77, 1977-92) at Kyoto University. Teaching at Stanford University since 1984. Research Interests Comparative institutional analysis, corporate governance, the theory of the firm, the Japanese economy. Representative Books The Co-operative Game Theory of the Firm, Oxford University Press, 1984. Information, Incentives, and Bargaining in the Japanese Economy, Cambridge University Press, 1988. Translated into French, Spanish, Italian, Chinese, Japanese and Russian. Information, Corporate Governance and Institutional Diversity, Toyo Keizai Shinposya, 1995, and Oxford university Press (2000) Towards a Comparative Institutional Analysis, MIT Press, 2001. Translated into Japanese, Chinese and French Representative Edited Books The Japanese Firm: Its Sources of Competitiveness, (co-authored with Ronald Dore), Oxford University Press, 1994. The Japanese Main Bank System and its Relevancy for Developing and Transforming Economies, (co-edited with Hugh Patrick), Oxford University Press, 1994. Corporate Governance in Transitional Economies: Insider Control and Roles of Banks, World Bank, 1994. The Role of Government in East Asian Economic Development: Comparative Institutional Analysis (co-edited with Hyung-ki Kim and Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara), Oxford University Press, 1997. Communities and Markets in Economic Development (co-edited with Yujiro Hayami), Oxford University, 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • A Modern Reader in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics : Key Concepts / Edited by Geoffrey M
    A Modern Reader in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics EUROPEAN ASSOCIATION FOR EVOLUTIONARY POLITICAL ECONOMY Series Editor: Geoffrey M. Hodgson, University of Hertfordshire Business School, UK Mixed Economies in Europe: An Evolutionary Perspective on their Emergence, Transition and Regulation Edited by Wolfgang Blaas and John Foster The Political Economy of Diversity: Evolutionary Perspectives on Economic Order and Disorder Edited by Robert Delorme and Kurt Dopfer On Economic Institutions: Theory and Applications Edited by John Groenewegen, Christos Pitelis and Sven-Erik Sjöstrand Rethinking Economics: Markets, Technology and Economic Evolution Edited by Geoffrey M. Hodgson and Ernesto Screpanti Environment, Technology and Economic Growth: The Challenge to Sustainable Development Edited by Andrew Tylecote and Jan van der Straaten Institutions and Economic Change: New Perspectives on Markets, Firms and Technology Edited by Klaus Nielsen and Björn Johnson Pluralism in Economics: New Perspectives in History and Methodology Edited by Andrea Salanti and Ernesto Screpanti Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity Edited by Ash Amin and Jerzy Hausner Employment, Technology and Economic Needs: Theory, Evidence and Public Policy Edited by Jonathan Michie and Angelo Reati Institutions and the Evolution of Capitalism: Implications of Evolutionary Economics Edited by John Groenewegen and Jack Vromen Is Economics an Evolutionary Science? The Legacy of Thorstein Veblen Edited by Francisco Louçã and Mark Perlman Technology and Knowledge: From the Firm to Innovation Systems Edited by Pier Paolo Saviotti and Bart Nooteboom Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present Edited by Pierre Garrouste and Stavros Ioannides A Modern Reader in Institutional and Evolutionary Economics: Key Concepts Edited by Geoffrey M.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Do Transactions Come From? a Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm
    06-051 Where Do Transactions Come From? A Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm Carliss Y. Baldwin* Kim B. Clark† Copyright © 2006 Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Where Do Transactions Come From? A Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm Carliss Y. Baldwin* Kim B. Clark† May 11, 2006 A very early version of this paper was presented at the Saint-Gobain Centre for Economic Research 5th Conference, Paris, FR, November 7-8, 2002. We thank Richard Langlois, Michael Jacobides, Jason Woodard, Masahiko Aoki, Ben Bensaou, Amar Bhide, Robert Boyer, Takahiro Fujimoto, Robert Gibbons, Nobuo Ikeda, Datta Kulkarni, Luigi Marengo, Sharon Novak, Mari Sako, David Scharfstein, David Sharman, Robert Solow, Robin Stevenson, and Daniel Whitney, as well as seminar participants at the MIT Design Structure Matrix Workshop, the NBER Conference on Organizational Economics, the London Business School Modularity Miniconference, Southern Methodist University, Columbia Law School, and the MIT Industrial Performance Center for thoughtful comments on previous drafts. We alone are responsible for errors, oversights and faulty reasoning. *Harvard Business School †Brigham Young University, Idaho WHERE DO TRANSACTIONS COME FROM? MAY 11, 2006 Direct correspondence to: Carliss Y. Baldwin [email protected] Copyright © Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark, 2006 2 WHERE DO TRANSACTIONS COME FROM? MAY 11, 2006 Where Do Transactions Come From? A Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm Carliss Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia*
    Cooperation in a Peer Production Economy Experimental Evidence from Wikipedia* Yann Algan† Yochai Benkler‡ Mayo Fuster Morell§ Jérôme Hergueux¶ July 2013 Abstract The impressive success of peer production – a large-scale collaborative model of production primarily based on voluntary contributions – is difficult to explain through the assumptions of standard economic theory. The aim of this paper is to study the prosocial foundations of cooperation in this new peer production economy. We provide the first field test of existing economic theories of prosocial motives for contributing to real-world public goods. We use an online experiment coupled with observational data to elicit social preferences within a diverse sample of 850 Wikipedia contributors, and seek to use to those measures to predict subjects’ field contributions to the Wikipedia project. We find that subjects’ field contributions to Wikipedia are strongly related to their level of reciprocity in a conditional Public Goods game and in a Trust game and to their revealed preference for social image within the Wikipedia community, but not to their level of altruism either in a standard or in a directed Dictator game. Our results have important theoretical and practical implications, as we show that reciprocity and social image are both strong motives for sustaining cooperation in peer production environments, while altruism is not. JEL classification: H41, C93, D01, Z13 Keywords: Field Experiment, Public Goods, Social Preferences, Peer Production, Internet * We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant) and logistical support from the Sciences Po médialab and the Wikimedia Foundation. We are grateful to Anne l’Hôte and Romain Guillebert for outsdanding research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of State Socialization
    Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 415–433 Copyright © British International Studies Association Making sense of state socialization KAI ALDERSON Abstract. At present, International Relations scholars use the metaphor of ‘state socializ- ation’ in mutually incompatible ways, embarking from very different starting points and arriving at a bewildering variety of destinations. There is no consensus on what state socializ- ation is, who it affects, or how it operates. This article seeks to chart this relatively unmapped concept by defining state socialization, differentiating it from similar concepts, and exploring what the study of state socialization can contribute to important and longstanding theoretical debates in the field of international relations. Introduction Norms are gaining ground in the study of International Relations.1 Not only are they the focus of extensive conceptual and theoretical work, but international norms are increasingly seen as weight-bearing elements of explanatory theories in issue- areas ranging from national security to the study of international organization.2 Regime theory continues to generate an extraordinarily fecund research pro- gramme,3 and its central insight—that relations among competitive sovereign states are shot through with norms of cooperation—links contemporary scholarship to long-standing reflections on the nature of the international.4 Constructivist scholars, for their part, argue that social norms offer a radical alternative to interest- and power-based accounts of international politics.5 1 As readily attested by the contributions to the recent fiftieth anniversary edition of International Organization, 52: 4 (1998). See, in particular, contributions by Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner (esp.
    [Show full text]
  • An Experimental Investigation of Electoral Delegation and the Provision of Public Goods
    An Experimental Investigation of Electoral Delegation and the Provision of Public Goods John R. Hamman Florida State University Roberto A. Weber University of Zurich Jonathan Woon University of Pittsburgh How effectively do democratic institutions provide public goods? Despite the incentives an elected leader has to free ride or impose majority tyranny, our experiment demonstrates that electoral delegation results in full provision of the public good. Analysis of the experimental data suggests that the result is primarily due to electoral selection: groups elect prosocial leaders and replace those who do not implement full contribution outcomes. However, we also observe outcomes in which a minimum winning coalition exploits the contributions of the remaining players. A second experiment demonstrates that when electoral delegation must be endogenously implemented, individuals voluntarily cede authority to an elected agent only when preplay communication is permitted. Our combined results demonstrate that democratic delegation helps groups overcome the free-rider problem and generally leads to outcomes that are often both efficient and equitable. ocial scientists have long recognized individuals’ to Hobbes’ ideal vision of an absolute sovereign, decision strong incentives to “free ride” on the contribu- makers in modern democratic governments wield their S tionsofotherswhenpublicgoodsareprovided power temporarily, subject to popular approval, and reg- through decentralized, voluntary institutions (Dawes ular elections give citizens the opportunity to select new 1980; Hardin 1968; Lindahl 1919; Olson 1965; Samuelson leaders. 1954). As a result of such individual incentives, society will We explore the extent to which delegation through tend to underproduce public goods and will sometimes repeated elections can solve the free-rider problem by even fail to produce them at all.
    [Show full text]